[QUOTE=Jstanl;706832]Are you suggesting that ancient cities that surrounded themselves with defensive walls were causing other societies to attack them?

No. Your comparison is flawed, as the following shows:

The attacks came first and the walls were a response.

There were no attacks from Russia, as far as I remember. Case closed.

The SDI lunacy could validly be perceived as preparation for an attack.Because it bypasses the whole deterrence logic, on which peace resided,and puts one party out of reach for the other.Mutual vulnerability was the key to peace, during Cold War.Reagan's SDI would have changed that,if it had been technically feasible.

Only those who don't want it built in the first place are using the word "infeasible".

Maybe, so let's just say: a complete waste of money because not serving anybody except the weaponry profiteers.

Remember, in 1961 when JFK became President, men on the moon was "infeasible".

I can't remember, was only born in the year when it proved to be feasible.

Missle warfare is going on today even as we speak, especially in the Middle East. It makes sense that those who can are developing a defense against it.

Yup. As long as it stays within reasonable financial limits,and does not contradict signed agreements,and does not preclude non-military efforts to solve conflicts.

[QUOTE]Yup. As long as it stays within reasonable financial limits,
and does not contradict signed agreements,
and does not preclude non-military efforts to solve conflicts.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, no one has ever dictated the extent to which the USA can go to defend itself.

We are not a satelite of the Bear. And we were developing SDI in the waning years of the Soviet Union. I don't understand where Russia got the idea that we had an agreement with them not to develop it. Remember that N. Korea has already attempted to test a missle that they fired in the direction of our West Coast. And Russia recently paraded ICBMs through Red Square. And Russia is still not honoring it's promise to pull out of Georgia, instead they are methodically dismantling the country. Why should we trust Russia on any matter?

In a move sure to heighten tensions, a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian supplies headed toward Georgia through Turkey's straits between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was the first of three U.S. warships carrying blankets, hygiene kits and baby food to Georgia.

Paul Farley, a spokesman at the U.S. naval base in Crete, said all three would reach Georgia "within the next week." He did not give their exact destination.

The United States has carried out 20 aid flights to Georgia since Aug. 19. The U.N. estimates 158,000 people have fled their homes.

"We anticipate staying as long as there is need and helping to set up the economy, because it's very important that the economy begins to take on its normal aspects. But it depends on our ability to do full assessments throughout Georgia," Henrietta Fore, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told reporters Thursday in Washington.

In a move sure to heighten tensions, a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian supplies headed toward Georgia through Turkey's straits between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was the first of three U.S. warships carrying blankets, hygiene kits and baby food to Georgia.

Paul Farley, a spokesman at the U.S. naval base in Crete, said all three would reach Georgia "within the next week." He did not give their exact destination.

The United States has carried out 20 aid flights to Georgia since Aug. 19. The U.N. estimates 158,000 people have fled their homes.

"We anticipate staying as long as there is need and helping to set up the economy, because it's very important that the economy begins to take on its normal aspects. But it depends on our ability to do full assessments throughout Georgia," Henrietta Fore, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told reporters Thursday in Washington.[/QUOTE]

L.Ann;

Thanks for the link. It appears Turkey settled it's concerns. Frankly I am surprised they are using war ships but there it is.

Also from the article;

[QUOTE]Some Ossetians said they were not prepared to live alongside ethnic Georgians anymore.

"It's not they, it's we who will erase them from the face of Earth," said Alan Didurov, 46.[/QUOTE]

On the question of 'ethnic cleansing' there seems to be little doubt that it is intentional and who is pushing it. That does not mean that it includes genocide, however.

Thanks for the link. It appears Turkey settled it's concerns. Frankly I am surprised they are using war ships but there it is.

Also from the article;
On the question of 'ethnic cleansing' there seems to be little doubt that it is intentional and who is pushing it. That does not mean that it includes genocide, however.

Jim[/QUOTE]

Your Welcome....

I found this quote reminiscent:

" NATO, Moscow's Cold War foe, said Russia had halted military cooperation with the alliance, underscoring the growing division in a Europe that had SEEMED DESTINED for UNITY after the Soviet Union collapsed. "

(keeping in mind, NATO, the day before concluded a temporary disconnect due to untrustworthy relations).....

[QUOTE=Jstanl;707712]Sorry, no one has ever dictated the extent to which the USA can go to defend itself. [/QUOTE]
I tend to feel sick when reading the "sorry" in such sentences.
It means the direct opposite of its true, courteous meaning of an apology,
rather means "I won't EVER apologise for what I say now".
But that's a problem I have with common language use in the USA, it appears...

More on-topic, my response is that I sincerely hope that the EU will not allow itself to be drawn into this idiotic, Moscow & Tbilisi & Washington-made conflict. Stay out of it, largely, as most of us stayed out of the Iraq stuff. It really is none of our business to support either side of the ethnic cleansers.

Polarisers like Rice or Saakashvili must never again get a chance to determine my old continent's fate!

[QUOTE=CharikIeia;708487]
I tend to feel sick when reading the "sorry" in such sentences.
It means the direct opposite of its true, courteous meaning of an apology,
rather means "I won't EVER apologise for what I say now".
But that's a problem I have with common language use in the USA, it appears...

More on-topic, my response is that I sincerely hope that the EU will not allow itself to be drawn into this idiotic, Moscow & Tbilisi & Washington-made conflict. Stay out of it, largely, as most of us stayed out of the Iraq stuff. It really is none of our business to support either side of the ethnic cleansers.

Polarisers like Rice or Saakashvili must never again get a chance to determine my old continent's fate![/QUOTE]

Hi Charikleia:
I really don't think Jim's usage of the word 'sorry' was intended as interpreted. Based upon the usage it is an interjection; meaning an opening to a 'contray view' than otherwise stated by yourself. This is very common in the English language and is used as apology for hurting, interrupting, or inconveniencing somebody. It was nicely polite in stating his viewpoint and very non-dictorial in concept.

It appears that the EU cannot dismiss the conflict of Russia's intrusive entry into Georgia. In fact, as you recall, the head of the rotating EU presidency (France) happens to be the one who brokered the cease fire deal. I believe that France is personally subjected to the Russian offense due to the recognized, legitimate political support and economic alliance in Georgia. Many countries are affected due to the occupation and it is a direct offense against the sovereign status. That is the problem! It is not comparable to Iraq nor Afghanistan, though some may utilize this for propaganda.

The relationship the U.S. has in it's relations to other government s is characterized by the theory and support of sovereignity in democratic governing to each in 'free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group." This theory may be contrary to your pre-conceived idea in the establishment of civil society and is a direct pomposity suggesting "that the U.S. dictated Georgia's actions."

In fact, a one-party state is the form of communism in any system of government in which a single, usually totalitarian, party holds power, and the state controls the economy. The Totalitarian party is centralized and dictatorial: relating to or operating a centralized government system in which a single party without opposition rules over political, economic, social, and cultural life.

This is not the case in Georgia's establishment of government, nor is it Washington's implementation in democratic Georgia; The last election process was confirmed in Georgia by recount and proved legitimate if you research Encarta Premium, though, some would love to disprove the (still) majority of ethnic Georgians without ties to Russia's totalitarian form of rule. Of which, brings the question what are the true goals of the Russian Military still doing in Georgia by occupying strategic points of interest that will affect -control the economic flow of product and services from Georgia?

In fact, a one-party state is the form of communism in any system of government in which a single, usually totalitarian, party holds power, and the state controls the economy. The Totalitarian party is centralized and dictatorial: relating to or operating a centralized government system in which a single party without opposition rules over political, economic, social, and cultural life.

Of which, brings the question what are the true goals of the Russian Military still doing in Georgia by occupying strategic points of interest that will affect -control the economic flow of product and services from Georgia?[/QUOTE]

Adding: Russia's form of communism expressed in Georgia directly affects not only the economy; but also rules Political, Social and Cultural life that has been well noted by their actions by civilian displacement (ethnic cleansing), economic strategic points of occupation (sea ports, main road routes, and major cities), Integration of Russian loyals into Georgia's main cities; staging social gathering of Orchastra for S.Ossetians with own reporters shipped in and P.R. campaign included in honoring the 133 proven dead, though stated 2,000; And. the re-positioning of cultural materialism and non-cultural relativism in theory for society....

Jim said, in a response to Charikleia; "Sorry, no one has ever dictated the extent to which the USA can go to defend itself."

[QUOTE=CharikIeia;708487]I tend to feel sick when reading the "sorry" in such sentences.
It means the direct opposite of its true, courteous meaning of an apology,
rather means "I won't EVER apologise for what I say now".
But that's a problem I have with common language use in the USA, it appears...[/QUOTE]

I genuinely apologize for using a colloquialism, common to native speakers of American English in my country, in a situation where the differences in language background might have caused a misunderstanding. L.Ann explains my use of the word 'sorry' in this case better than I can;

L.Ann; [QUOTE]I really don't think Jim's usage of the word 'sorry' was intended as interpreted. Based upon the usage it is an interjection; meaning an opening to a 'contray view' than otherwise stated by yourself. This is very common in the English language and is used as apology for hurting, interrupting, or inconveniencing somebody. It was nicely polite in stating his viewpoint and very non-dictorial in concept.[/QUOTE]

I confess to being a little irritated in making my response. There is a distinct underlying message here of Russia gets what Russia wants and the USA is expected to get in line. There has been, in the history of my cultural heritage, a similar assumption by the French and the British (read English). The USA did not get where it is today by allowing the current world bully to intimidate us. If we had we would never have stood up to the British. We would not have resisted Germany's attempt to dominate Europe or Japan's attempt to take control of the Western perimeter of the Pacific Ocean during the twentieth century.

The thing that is bothering me about your position, as I understand it, is that if it is typical of the European opinion of an effort to support the effort of other people to create a democratic society; then men like Putin, Chavez, Mugabe, Castro, Saddam, Osama and the Iranian religious junta may already own the world. What is more disturbing is that I am also hearing it from many liberals of my own society.

I lived in Saudi Arabia for four years. I know the difference between democratic political systems and totalitarian political systems. I find it a little depressing that so many bystanders can look on at what is happening in Georgia and believe that the Russians are not invading and occupying Georgia but actually liberating it from a government that has been determined to be democratically elected.

We don't expect democratic systems in other countries and cultures to look like ours, we do expect them to be voted into office by a majority of the people who live under that system. We know that other culures will not understand democracy the way we do. They have a different experience than we do. In fact the experience of the USA, Canada and Australia is very different from what it is in much older societies. Their concept of freedom is different from ours. Their democratic goverment is supposed to represent their expectations, not ours.